' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Mehboob Ahmad Khan, the petitioner through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 assails the validity of order dated 3-12-2010, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace whereby the learned Justice of Peace disposed of the application of the respondent No,4 under sections 22-A & 22-B of Cr.P.C. In the following terms:-- "In view of the contents of petition and arguments, the petitioner is directed to appear before the S.H.O., Police Station, Satto Katla, Lahore along with application and the S.H.O. Is directed to record the version of the petitioner as required under section 154, Cr.P.C. And proceed with the matter quite in accordance with law. With this direction the petition is disposed of."
' Petitioner also calls in question the validity of subsequent orders dated 7-12-2010 and 20-1-2011 passed by the learned Justice of Peace.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Addl. Sessions Judge fell in error while passing the impugned orders; that from the contents of the petition no cognizable offence is made out; that in fact respondent No,4 is ex-sister-inlaw of the petitioner; that the petitioner has contracted second marriage; that in-laws of the petitioner have nurtured grudge against the petitioner and a glaring example of this fact is that earlier the father of the respondent No,4 filed a civil suit against the petitioner; that prior to this petition the respondent No,4 filed an application before the Anti-Corruption authorities by levelling some frivolous allegations against the petitioner; that prior to filing application before the learned Justice of Peace the petitioner never approached the concerned police station as such the application under sections 22-A and 22-B is not maintainable. Relies on Muhammad Aslam Khan v. The State (2010 YLR 2984). Adds that the learned Justice of Peace passed the impugned orders while ignoring parawise comments filed by the S.H.O. Concerned that matter between the parties is of civil nature; that in view of the dictum laid down in case reported as Adrian Saeed v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and 2 others (2009 YLR 2062) that where the dispute between the parties seems to be of a civil nature, the passing of an order for registration of a criminal case is not justifiable; that the petitioner has adequate and efficacious remedy of filing of private complaint. Relies on Rai Ashraf and others v.
Muhammad Saleem Bhatti (PLD 2010 SC 691). Further adds that the petitioner is a civil servant and if the impugned order is implemented not only the service of the petitioner will be affected but his repute would also damage; that the story narrated in the application under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Cr.P.C. Is false, frivolous and concocted one.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,4 submits that the order of the learned Justice of Peace is well reasoned; that while passing the said order learned Justice of Peace has not committed any illegality or irregularity. Relies on Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. And others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539).
4. Learned Law Officer also vociferously supported the impugned orders while arguing that from the contents of the complaint prima facie a cognizable offence is made out; that during the pendency of civil litigation criminal proceedings are not barred under the law. Relies on HAP, Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2006 5CMR 1192); that filing of private complaint is not efficacious remedy as without investigation of the police case property if any cannot be recovered; that no one is above the law and if a civil servant committed any offence he has to face the consequences.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that he obtained certain gold ornaments from the respondent No,4 for the purpose of safe custody which were later misappropriated by him. In the present case the petitioner is an official of Revenue Department whereas the respondent No,4 is a household lady, therefore, the comments of the police that no such occurrence took place and the respondent No,4 filed application under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Cr.P.C. Due to grudge of divorce given by the petitioner to the sister of respondent No,4 cannot be given due weightage.
While deciding the application under sections 22-A and 22-B of Cr.P.C. Only jurisdiction which could be exercised by, the learned Justice of Peace was to examine whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence and if it did then direct the concerned S.H.O. To record an F.I.R. Without going into veracity of the information in question. Reliance is placed on the case-law reported as Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. And others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539) and this is what the learned Justice of Peace has done in the present case. As regards case-law reported as Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 691) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned in that case the Hon'ble apex Court has held that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, when on the one hand there is a household lady alleging misappropriation of certain gold ornaments and on the other hand an influential person performing duty in the Revenue Department in the prevailing conditions in our country it would not be proper to leave the respondent No,4 at the mercy of the police authorities on the sole score that prior to filing of application the petitioner has not approached the concerned S.H.O. Learned Justice of Peace has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned order.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a remedy of filing of private complaint is not sustainable as the respondent No,4 has raised serious allegations of misappropriation of certain gold ornaments against the petitioner and the some can only be proved/recovered by the investigation of the police.
8. So far as the contention that dispute between the parties is of civil nature is concerned, in case reported as Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2006 SCM R 1192) the Hon'ble apex Court has held that criminal proceedings are not barred in presence of civil proceedings and that civil and criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously.
9. For what has been discussed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders calling interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this petition has no force and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.